Steam Machine: does Valve’s hardware live up to its potential?

Valve Software’s Steam platform has become the go-to source for gamers focused on the PC. With a huge catalog, constant sales and a consumer-first attitude, the digital store for games has exploded. As of the beginning of 2014, it had topped 75 million users.

Valve’s first round of officially branded Steam Machines will roll out from several manufacturers beginning on Nov. 10. Before that happens, Polygon was able to go hands-on with Alienware’s version of the Steam Machine, which comes packed with a quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, a custom-built Nvidia GeForce GTX card and 8 GB of RAM. We also got to test out Steam’s unique new controller.

I ordered a Steam Link (without controller) which should arrive any day now. I’ve heard nothing but praise for Steam’s streaming, so I’m excited to try it out.

About The Author

31 Comments

As a consumer, it’s hard to justify an investment on Steam Machines, specially considering that most of the AAA games won’t even run on it. As a GNU/Linux user, I hope that keeps changing, because more titles are being ported over or developed with GNU/Linux support in mind.

Having said that, Steam Link looks really nice. I already have a powerful computer, so why not use it, hidden? For casual games, which is the great majority, Steam streaming works great.

I’m a hardcore DRM-free fan (games and grandfathered-in things I haven’t managed to evict yet (BIOS and firmware, nVidia drivers, Flash, Dropbox, and Upwork’s time-tracking client) are the only things even allowed to be closed-source on my system), so I’m not that interested in Steam itself, but I’ll definitely be keeping my eye on whether it’s worthwhile to get a Steam Controller to experiment with, sans-Steam.

Valve Software’s Steam platform has become the go-to source for gamers focused on the PC.

Those who buy DRM-free only, use GOG.

Regarding Steam Machines, I wonder if manufacturers would be interested in connecting more distributors with them, i.e. not just Valve’s Steam, but also GOG, HB and etc.

It would benefit them more than Valve, but it would benefit users as well. That could be in stark contrast with incumbent consoles from MS and Sony, which combine manufacturer, publisher and distributor in one inseparable walled garden.

Hopefully more competition from Steam Machines could also disrupt current stagnated console market, where hardware is updated once in 8 years and expected to be low end to maintain very low price. Steam Machines can cause hardware level to rise and to be refreshed more frequently like in competitive desktop and mobile markets.

Releasing on one distributor only reduces reach and potential for sales, so stronger competition (i.e. growing GOG) will make exclusive releases not attractive. Developers wouldn’t want to lose a chunk of their sales by limiting them to one distributor only.

About Steamworks lock-in – that can be an issue (and I encountered it more than once when developers couldn’t release on GOG or delayed releases because of that). But again, in more competitive environment developers will take care to avoid lock-in to maximize their profit.

You realize a “Steam Machine” is just a pc with at least a minimum performance requirement…right? Also, the vast majority of console gamers don’t give two sh*ts about their consoles being walled gardens. Gamers couldn’t care less if their systems are open-source or closed-source. As long as the AAA titles keep flowing, they’re happy. And the only way to compete with the main console makers is to have AAA titles of your own.

On another note… I wonder how many people with a boner for “Steam Machines” were also declaring the pc dead. Would be interesting to go back to previous posts and see.

Personally I’m not that interested in Steam Machines themselves, I’m OK with my regular high end PC for Linux gaming. But Valve deserves credit for pushing Linux gaming in general through that effort. And as I said, if they’ll manage to disrupt current stagnated console market, it would benefit everyone, because currently there is a lot of negative effects caused by very long and lazy upgrade cycle of incumbent consoles.

Console makers don’t set out to make a killing on the hardware, they make it through the software. Nobody expects (or wants) new hardware every two years like they do cellphones. Console game sales have been consistently in the $20-25 billion range for that last 10 years. That being the case, I’m not sure what you think is stagnated with the console market. It’s alive, well, and raking in truckloads of cash.

I don’t see trouble in gaming. High-end pcs service those who want the newest hardware and have the disposable money to spend on it. Consoles service those who want to spend less investment for a system, and then only worry about buying games from then on. The idea of upgradeable consoles seems like a solution looking for a problem somewhere inbetween consoles and high-end gaming pcs.

It’s cool they’re trying to push for more Linux gaming though. More and better games for Linux can only help. Without that a lot of people won’t even give Linux a second look. Or a first look for that matter.

Console makers don’t set out to make a killing on the hardware, they make it through the software. [/q]

That situation is caused by low level of competition. Nothing like that happens in desktop and mobile markets. But it could happen there as well if not for multiple manufacturers competing, and separation of distributors, publishers and those hardware vendors. Incumbent consoles are all those three lumped together, that’s why there is such stagnation there. I.e. low competition always means slow progress.

Nobody expects (or wants) new hardware every two years like they do cellphones.

You don’t need to change hardware every two years (including for mobile handsets and desktops). But it should come out frequently enough, so when you wanted – you could switch hardware, instead of being stuck with 8 year old specs. Plus developers don’t need to be limited by such outdated boundaries (which is especially ridiculous for games).

I’m not sure what you think is stagnated with the console market.

Pace of hardware releases, and set expectations that hardware should be low end and quite outdated for such long periods of time. That’s a clear sign of insufficient competition.

[q]Consoles service those who want to spend less investment for a system

Again, that’s what MS and Sony like you to think, because that’s what they offer. But it’s not what could happen if competition was stronger. And that’s what’s hopefully going to change now with Steam Machines.

Consoles really aren’t about the low / high end – that has nothing to do with their idea. Their main idea is high usability and controller style gaming. That’s all there is to it. There is no inherent requirements for them to be low end and cheap.

That situation is caused by low level of competition. Nothing like that happens in desktop and mobile markets. But it could happen there as well if not for multiple manufacturers competing, and separation of distributors, publishers and those hardware vendors. Incumbent consoles are all those three lumped together, that’s why there is such stagnation there. I.e. low competition always means slow progress. [/q] Because the hardware isn’t intended to be a primary revenue stream, console makers find a balance between enough capability in the hardware, and cost. Competition doesn’t really have anything to do with the hardware aspect. You can complain about hardware not being updated more frequently but remember the console market isn’t about selling hardware, it’s about selling software.

You don’t need to change hardware every two years (including for mobile handsets and desktops). But it should come out frequently enough, so when you wanted – you could switch hardware, instead of being stuck with 8 year old specs. Plus developers don’t need to be limited by such outdated boundaries (which is especially ridiculous for games).

I disagree. Games take a long time to create and one of the biggest pros I’ve read devs like about consoles is that they know by the time they finish a game, it isn’t going to be outdated before the first copy is sold. The consistency in hardware is a major part of why consoles are so successful. Console gaming and pc gaming are two different things and what you’re talking about is like trying to force console gaming to be more like pc gaming. I think that can hurt the console market more than help it. Like shoving a square through a circle.

[q]Consoles really aren’t about the low / high end – that has nothing to do with their idea. Their main idea is high usability and controller style gaming. That’s all there is to it. There is no inherent requirements for them to be low end and cheap.

Not quite. For maximum penetration consoles have to be at a price point that agrees with what the Average Joe is willing to spend. You can not accomplish that without making compromise. If it’s not affordable, people won’t buy it. It doesn’t matter how usable a console is if nobody is buying it.

Steam Machines are nothing more than small footprint pcs with gaming capability. They follow the pc gaming model and are certainly more pc-like than console-like. I don’t think any of the big console makers have much to worry about when it comes to Steam Machines until (and if) Steam Machines prove to be competition to the console gaming market.

Because the hardware isn’t intended to be a primary revenue stream<…> Competition doesn’t really have anything to do with the hardware aspect. [/q]

Only in the lumped together situation I described above (when one entity like Sony is a hardware vendor, publisher and distributor). That’s already very unncompetitive and unhealthy for the market. When there is a healthy separation on hardware vendors, publishers and distributors, then each of them will try to increase quality and compete. Which for hardware means better specs and frequent enough refreshes.

Games take a long time to create and one of the biggest pros I’ve read devs like about consoles is that they know by the time they finish a game

Same developers are often limited by outdated specs of consoles, and because of that can’t use more up to date desktop hardware to full potential (unless they make their engine very flexible and adjustable to all kind of hardware levels). I.e. consoles are holding them back. That was noted more than once and it’s not something disputable, it’s a fact.

[q]Not quite. For maximum penetration consoles have to be at a price point that agrees with what the Average Joe is willing to spend

Mobile handsets have very high penetration. They have a whole range of devices from cheap to very expensive. Nothing prevents consoles from doing the same, except for lack of competition.

Current console status quo is not a console gaming model. It’s what Sony and MS made it to be. I.e. it’s not a natural thing, but situation caused by low competition. That was my point exactly.

Not quite. For maximum penetration consoles have to be at a price point that agrees with what the Average Joe is willing to spend

Mobile handsets have very high penetration. They have a whole range of devices from cheap to very expensive. Nothing prevents consoles from doing the same, except for lack of competition. [/q]

Consoles and cellphones couldn’t be more apples and oranges. Cellphones have such high penetration largely in part because they cost of the phones are subsidized. That allows the price to drop significantly and become affordable to a much much larger group of people. Console makers essentially sell their hardware at cost or a little below. They’re already taking a loss so who is going to subsidize even further? You can’t simply look at some completely different market and business model and say if we copy that we’ll get the same result.

Also, cellphones serve a completely different purpose. It’s pointless to detail why a person would need a cellphone vs. a game console – it should be obvious to everyone.

[q]Current console status quo is not a console gaming model. It’s what Sony and MS made it to be. I.e. it’s not a natural thing, but situation caused by low competition. That was my point exactly.

First, let’s not forget that Sega and Nintendo have also been big players in the creation of the console market and business model. If consoles are stagnated and there’s this big problem with hardware not being up-to-date enough, how has it managed to consistently be a $20-$25 billion dollar a year market? People willingly buy consoles for entertainment purposes. The sales of consoles and associated games proves the market is solid.

What I don’t hear, see, or read anywhere is an outcry from the console gamer community that the hardware isn’t updated often enough and that there isn’t enough competition to choose from. The one thing you seem to be missing is the most important part. Console gamers only care about the games — not the hardware, not how much competition is in the market… simply the games. Hardware specs are fun to compare but they don’t equate to quality or fun games, and the buck stops there.

Cellphones have such high penetration largely in part because they cost of the phones are subsidized. [/q]

Subsidies are dead. Today mobile handsets are sold for full price. It’s actually better for consumers. Subsidies didn’t give them free or cheap devices. They paid for them with more expensive plans.

Also, cellphones serve a completely different purpose.

All of those devices today are simply general purpose computers used commonly in certain scenarios. Their purposes overlap more than often.

If consoles are stagnated and there’s this big problem with hardware not being up-to-date enough, how has it managed to consistently be a $20-$25 billion dollar a year market?

Stagnation doesn’t mean low profit. Monopolists actually make the most profit, and they are the most stagnated, because lack of competition makes them lazy. I.e. they don’t bother because everyone comes to them anyway. Competition causes faster progress on the other hand.

Nintendo is a bad example – they always aimed at low end and casual games, while MS and Sony aimed at wider range, including high end ones. So strictly speaking they weren’t fully competing anyway.

[q]What I don’t hear, see, or read anywhere is an outcry from the console gamer community that the hardware isn’t updated often enough

Brainwashing works. You hear it form developers however, who know the limitations it imposes on them for very long time. Personally I hope this will change for the better because of Steam Machines. This insane 8 year update cycle should be retired for good. Then the whole gaming industry will start being more up to speed with current technology.

Subsidies are dead. Today mobile handsets are sold for full price. It’s actually better for consumers. Subsidies didn’t give them free or cheap devices. They paid for them with more expensive plans. [/q] The move away from subsidies only started happening recently. The vast mobile market wasn’t built on unsubsidized phones. The subsidies are a major reason why the mobile market has been able to grow like it has. So, who is going to subsidize consoles? The more a console costs, the more greatly the consumers willingness and ability to pay for it diminishes. Again, cellphones and console are apples and oranges in every way.

Also, cellphones serve a completely different purpose.

All of those devices today are simply general purpose computers used commonly in certain scenarios. Their purposes overlap more than often.

Game consoles and cellphone uses overlap? Maybe only in the most broad scope, but not if you look at how people actually use them.

Stagnation doesn’t mean low profit. Monopolists actually make the most profit, and they are the most stagnated, because lack of competition makes them lazy. I.e. they don’t bother because everyone comes to them anyway. Competition causes faster progress on the other hand.

Again, I don’t see any real complaints from the console community about hardware stagnation. You want more competition so there’s faster adoption of the latest technology, but that’s not what the gaming community has said it wants. And they certainly don’t want to pay for frequent hardware upgrades. The $60 game you want coming out next year is no longer $60. It would be $60 + whatever the cost of the necessary upgrades are.

Nintendo is a bad example – they always aimed at low end and casual games, while MS and Sony aimed at wider range, including high end ones. So strictly speaking they weren’t fully competing anyway.

Wrong. Nintendo always aimed at high replay value and built massive game franchises on that principle. Microsoft, Sony, and Sega have all considered Nintendo as competition and I would say that outweighs any theory that they’re not.

[q]What I don’t hear, see, or read anywhere is an outcry from the console gamer community that the hardware isn’t updated often enough

Brainwashing works. You hear it form developers however, who know the limitations it imposes on them for very long time. Personally I hope this will change for the better because of Steam Machines. This insane 8 year update cycle should be retired for good. Then the whole gaming industry will start being more up to speed with current technology.

Brainwashing? Come on, that’s as ridiculous as the religious nuts saying “because God” when they don’t have a real answer.

PC gaming is not direct competition for console gaming, therefore “Steam Machine” gaming (AKA PC gaming in a smaller footprint) is not either. I will say it again, console gamers don’t expect or want a platform that requires more frequent upgrading (aka cost). They want good hardware as a base from which to build solid entertaining games on. Whether or not the hardware is the latest in technology is not a priority. It’s not that the entire console community is brainwashed, it’s that you seem disconnected from what they actually want. I say that as a console gamer.

When this topic surely resurfaces in the future at some point, we can look at the current market conditions at that time and see who was more on the money. I’m stating right now that Steam Machine pcs are not going to make a dent in the console market. In the best case scenario they may actually advance Linux gaming – possibly even to the point where it’s no longer a complete joke. But, even then Linux gaming will still lag far far behind Windows gaming.

Game consoles and cellphone uses overlap? Maybe only in the most broad scope [/q]

Then why does Sony offer video streaming service on PS? I saw something about it recently. (Not sure about Xbox, but I assume something like that exists there too). It’s a clear overlap with any other general purpose computer used for accessing video.

Again, I don’t see any real complaints from the console community about hardware stagnation.

I saw such complaints more than once. Consolization is known to be a major thorn for gamers. Not sure where you take your sources for that kind of info, but I’ve heard it first hand from upset people.

Nintendo always aimed at high replay value and built massive game franchises on that principle.

But for low end games. Nintendo never aimed at graphic intensive ones, which requires stronger hardware.

It is, if you count how many games are cross platform. And there are a lot. Developers want to maximize profits, so they release for PC OSes and consoles. And that’s exactly where the problem lies. PC hardware is refreshed normally, while consoles lag behind. Which causes developers to use them as the low common level for their performance expectations (i.e. degrading games potential).

If Steam Machines will disrupt this stagnation, such issue will be non existent.

Then why does Sony offer video streaming service on PS? I saw something about it recently. (Not sure about Xbox, but I assume something like that exists there too). It’s a clear overlap with any other general purpose computer used for accessing video. [/q] Because I can access say, Netflix, from my game consoles, cellphone, tablet, and desktops, are you implying that these devices are basically one in the same because they share a few common usage points?

Again, I don’t see any real complaints from the console community about hardware stagnation.

I saw such complaints more than once. Consolization is known to be a major thorn for gamers. Not sure where you take your sources for that kind of info, but I’ve heard it first hand from upset people.

I get my info from my fellow gamers and gaming-focused websites/forums. This `major thorn` you’re claiming exists, doesn’t. I don’t know where you’re finding these `upset people` but it’s not any of the places I’ve mentioned.

Nintendo always aimed at high replay value and built massive game franchises on that principle.

But for low end games. Nintendo never aimed at graphic intensive ones, which requires stronger hardware.

Low end games? That’s blatantly ridiculous. Nintendo has led the console gaming market at various points and created many of the biggest game franchises in existence, including the biggest (Mario). Nintendo has set many trends over the years.

You don’t know anything about console gaming if you think the only thing anyone cares about is the highest resolution, highest mapping, highest everything. Like I said before, specs can be fun to compare but the buck stops with the games, not the specs.

It’s obvious you’re not even a console gamer yourself, and you not understanding the communities viewpoints on this stuff doesn’t make everyone a victim of brainwashing.

PC gaming is not direct competition for console gaming

It is, if you count how many games are cross platform. And there are a lot. Developers want to maximize profits, so they release for PC OSes and consoles. And that’s exactly where the problem lies. PC hardware is refreshed normally, while consoles lag behind. Which causes developers to use them as the low common level for their performance expectations (i.e. degrading games potential).

So you think consoles are tied so directly to PC gaming that consoles are the baseline for PC games? No. A primary platform is chosen (usually PC) and the game is developed there. Then scaled or adjusted for other platforms if it needs to be. If the game was originally designed for console, and then later cross-platformed to PC, they developer may or may not add extra enhancements – most of the time they do.

[q]If Steam Machines will disrupt this stagnation, such issue will be non existent.

The console market is alive and well. Steam Machine PC gaming won’t have any measurable impact on it. It won’t have any real impact on PC gaming either. Linux gaming may see a much needed boost from the Steam Machine but Linux gaming will still only be a tiny sliver of the gaming pie.

You’ve got my prediction. It’s been recorded for future reference. Let’s wait and see who’s on the money.

Then we have different sources. All gamers I know have very little respect for consolization problems caused by stagnating market.

Low end games? That’s blatantly ridiculous. Nintendo has led the console gaming market at various points and created many of the biggest game franchises in existence, including the biggest (Mario).

Which was always a low end game. Low end doesn’t mean it’s not a good game. But it’s not resource intensive and can run on low end hardware.

t’s obvious you’re not even a console gamer yourself

Indeed I’m not. I don’t find consoles useful.

and you not understanding the communities viewpoints

I understand it well, I communicate with enough gamers to gather their opinions. My primary focus is on Linux gaming in particular.

[q]A primary platform is chosen (usually PC) and the game is developed there. Then scaled or adjusted for other platforms if it needs to be

That’s exactly the root of the issue. If consoles lag behind PC by many years, then such porting step (in either direction) is very hard without compromising a lot of features and quality. So getting rid of the lag will improve games in general.

So you think that by trying to force consoles to be more pc-like, it will boost pc game quality? Gaming is a massive industry but there’s no question about it that console and mobile reigns supreme. PC gaming, while still huge, is in a distant third. Steam Machine PC gaming has no chance of changing that. If there’s been any marketing brainwashing going on, it’s that “Steam Machines” are anything more than a PC game system with a new sticker on the side.

I built my own steam machine using windows 10 instead of linux. What I did was replace explorer.exe with steam.exe for the shell, so it boots right up into steam and as a added bonus none of the windows 10 crapware like cortana load.

It’s also great that Valve is getting so many games and publishers to have their titles work on Linux. In the future I may switch over to SteamOS instead which will probably happen as windows 10 activation is a PITA.

I can say I would never buy another console after using the steam big picture mode for the last couple of months, works great and lets me decide on my hardware not Sony or Microsoft.

Been doing this for years now – cool isn’t it? Your case is pretty big though but if you’re ok with it, that’s all that matters. The only system I have these days that’s bigger than a shoe box at most is my main server and main desktop/workstation. Everything else is small and out-of-sight.

Thanks. I actually had it in a much smaller silverstone FTZ01 case and didn’t like it, and it got rather hot in the entertainment center. I really like the Rosewill Neutron and it works great sitting on the floor next to the entertainment center.

I don’t think of Steam as consumer first, profit first rather. DRM is certainly not consumer first, nor is auto-starting their client, pushing offers for other games, or the abysmal customer support; and if you were to cancel your account due to such things you lose the ability to run those games in which you have already purchased (which I guess is just more of the DRM).

Well, not really steam does have a offline mode, you just don’t get any updates to the newer titles that are still getting updates, but you could put it in offline mode and continue to use the games you have purchased.

Steam does have DRM, but they do it in a fairly decent way.

Overall I am very pleased with Steam and its DRM is far less intrusive than Sony’s is.

I’m a bit less pleased with Steam forcing you to update games before you can play them as some game updates removed functionality or fundamentally changed the dynamics (which then requires DLC to ‘undo’). For example: a GTA SA update which removed some radio tracks, and Payday 2’s recent update that made weapons unbalanced and weak and then added microtransactions to upgrade them again.

I’m a bit less pleased with Steam forcing you to update games before you can play them as some game updates removed functionality or fundamentally changed the dynamics (which then requires DLC to ‘undo’). For example: a GTA SA update which removed some radio tracks, and Payday 2’s recent update that made weapons unbalanced and weak and then added microtransactions to upgrade them again.

Doesn’t the XBONE and PS4 also force the updates on you?

One of the things about steam is it gives you a console “like” experience on a PC. I’m ok with it.

Their DRM proliferation surely is bad. But their effort to promote Linux gaming and especially push to replace OpenGL with modern open APIs (Vulkan and tools) is very good. So it’s a mixed bag. In practice I’m not using them at all because of DRM and buy games on GOG instead.

There is some tweaking involved with a windows based steam box depending on the version of windows you use, for example, if you are on windows 10 you may have to set a game exes compatibility mode to windows 7, windows vista or XP.

I would imagine the linux based SteamOS does not have this problem.

Only reason I am running windows 10 on my home built steam machine is because some of the older games I like only run on windows.

TBH, I’m kind of over GOG as a Linux platform. I mean they’re really not bothering with Linux at all. Games like Wing Commander 1/2/3 which are just repackaged in Dosbox they haven’t even bothered to release on Linux which should take them 5 seconds to do. (I’ve been able to make those games run myself easily.) It’s been more than a year and of my collection maybe 4 out of 25 games are running on Linux from GOG. I can emulate/Dosbox a lot more of the games than what GOG is packaging. I use the service more as a legal way to grab DOS games so I can emulate them than as a real service with value-add. Don’t even get me started on games they’re just being plain lazy with. Privateer 2 and Wing Commander 4 have a dos version which would run fine in Dosbox under OSX/Linux but do they release it? Nope. Just Wing Commander 4 DVD edition (Windows only) and Privateer 2 Windows edition. Talk about lazy. Both of these games emulate fine in Dosbox. Hell they could even wine wrap those games at 0 cost, but do they bother? NOPE.